Legal Opinion

Konrad v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1958PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

An inverse condemnation proceeding under ch. 32, Stats., is conducted at the expense of the taker. Sec. 32.15 (1), Stats. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to their expenses as well as their taxable costs. The expenses are substantial, particularly in view of their contract to pay a contingent fee to their attorneys. While the judgment does not expressly state that ch. 32, Stats., does not afford a remedy to plaintiffs for a taking of their property by a state agency, plaintiffs so interpret it because of the failure of the judgment to allow them their expenses, and because of the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Martin v. ReisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Benka v. Consolidated Water Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin SystemWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Zinn v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  3. City of Kenosha v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Metzger v. Wisconsin Department of TaxationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. State Ex Rel. Department of Public Instruction v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API